Keir Starmer Government urged to clarify definition of sex by the Tories

[IwantToRetire]

Shadow equalities minister Claire Coutinho has pressed the Government to clarify the definition of sex. Equalities minister Bridget Phillipson said it was “important that providers have clarity in this area”.

She added that providers “have the right to restrict access to service on the basis of biological sex” under the Equality Act 2010.

In the Commons on Wednesday, Coutinho said: “In the election the Conservative Party committed to clarifying the definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 to protect women’s rights.

“At the end of this month For Women Scotland vs Scottish Ministers will be heard in the UK Supreme Court, this case will have far-reaching consequences for sex-based rights. So can the Government assure the House that it’s clear that the definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex?”

During women and equalities questions, Phillipson replied: “I won’t comment on ongoing cases, but what I can be clear to her about is that the Equality Act 2010 does set out that providers, for example, have the right to restrict access to service on the basis of biological sex.

“This Government is proud of our achievements in legislating for the Equality Act. We will make sure that providers can continue to support single-sex exemptions. And it is important that providers have clarity in this area, and I’ll be happy to work with her to make sure that is the case.”

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-government-urged-clarify-34102096

I think you are attempting to make this personal to me. I don’t support the Tory Party. But I am content to work with other like minded people on a bill.

Can we do it FWR?

Go for it then.

I recall the posters working hard against the EqA at the time, why did you put so much energy into working against it anyway?

It's bizarre for this to now emerge after that, but I guess that's Labour for you

That is silly. You don’t know anything about me and attributing actions to me that aren’t true. Please stop it. I haven’t done the same to you, so please be courteous even if we disagree on our political leanings.

The one thing that the Conservatives achieved was having a consultation on self id. Then listening to it.

I dont think Starmer will do that, being more about following the law than listening to the public. He seems to believe that the fundamental premise is sound and its possible to allow more men to have GRC and state more clarily that woman can, not must, have single sex spaces, and everything is fine and everyone will be happy.

I don’t see any MP with his ear who is prepared to tell him differently.

I want to avoid this, but we are continuing down the path of the law only being tweaked when a major safeguarding fail hits the news.

I haven't changed my view on this, the posts are all still up for the sentiment pre GE and now

I don't get the switch, but if you want to do your own bill feel free to pressure Labour

Yes I think that is right actually - he acts entirely legalistically when it suits.

About the only way to place pressure is therefore to speak the same language and draft a bill to do that. Truss did a bill that was inadequate, but she provided a template. I am not much of a fan of hers, but it was actually a smart thing she did. I always wondered where it came from.

So somehow the Tories can just get things done, while Labour has to be cultivated?

Even parties in power can't just change guidance, or develop good policy, at the drop of a hat. That's true for Labour too and we'd be fools to expect that they can make substantive change on any issue in a moment.

But surely you must see that having gone from a place where they were already part the "getting their attention" bit, and were actively trying to draw together the threads of policy and legislative change, it is a huge step backwards to now have to try and convince Labour that something needs to be done at all? Without even any assurance they can be convinced.

I'd also note - rushing through policy for the sake of it tends to produce bad policy. This is a trend across the English speaking world that needs to be stamped out. Virtue signalling good intentions with shoddy legislation is not a valuable thing to do.

If people wanted the bill to have a mandate they shouldn't have worked against it

It's pretty simple really Labour voters now talking about changing the tide when a huge mandate shows it's not a priority, they are part of that outcome

If they feel strongly about changing Starmer on this go for it. Women here have done a lot, against much criticism, but if they feel strongly enough they can do it. No one is stopping them

Anyway, now that people have voted for Labour, it should be no surprise they are doing exactly what many of us thought they would do, which is carry on as if we are still stuck in 2018 on all this.

Maybe the Tories will propose a bill but it's not going to be something that will be quick to appear, but I am not at all that would make sense as it would be defeated unless Labour changes its thinking a lot.

I wouldn’t disagree with any of that.

But to reflect political reality, Labour in, and to work on how they are rather than how we might like is real politics isn’t it? I don’t agree with the tone of uproar re gender criticality which has achieved very little.

Let’s choose guidance which can be changed. The first thing any department will do is ask on the legality behind the guidance. That is what increasingly didn’t happen or, rather more accurately, the government legal position permitted guidance that for example, allowed male rapists in women’s prisons. Now that has changed back after Raab revised it. But that process of central legal position still exists.

When I think of the big social changes in legislation they took a long time. There were failures. In the end they were cross party works. This one will be too.

Starmer will deliver some statutory exceptions on single sex provision is my guess. Guidance is revised from there.

It's certainly the case that anyone can only work with what's there.

As far as the opposition, I don't think the Tories are going to let this issue go, so we'll see what comes of that.

But influencing Labour...seems fraught to me. I only see them making small changes or tweaks, but more than that, I suppose I don't really see much capacity there to formulate good policy, even on a very small scale. By that I mean, their approach doesn't seem to be systematic, they don't seem to think about long term effects.

There is something missing there, it's like they are incapable of seeing a bigger picture, so are completely focused on the surface?

It's kind of an odd thing that I am having trouble articulating. I think one of the reasons Labour won is because it was clear the Tories need time to regroup and refresh - parties in power always seem to need periods like this, where they are out of power and renewal happens. But it almost seems like Labour didn't really do this in their opposition time (which is maybe why they stayed there so long.)

Who among Labour though seems to have a little more vision to see the big picture, and also craft some strong policy that could be effective and not have unwanted secondary effects? Maybe Streeting? I don't know if he's trustworthy, or how much freedom Starmer might want to give him> It seems to me he is a bit of a risk for Starmer at this point.

But I think what sticks in the craw a bit is the fact that a lot of people here warned that we would go backwards with this if Labour got in, and were told that wasn't the case - and somehow despite it turning out as expected, right down to the lack of significant other changes - and somehow this is still the fault of the Tories? Surely they did not make Labour into the total head in the sand dickheads they are being on this.

Sex Matters have already done the work for this and sent a technical briefing to MPs in September.

https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Amending-the-Equality-Act-technical-briefing.pdf

But neither this forum nor Sex Matters can 'draft a bill' because we are not the government and we are not MPs who have won a spot for a private member's bill.

There is provision for private individuals to introduce a bill but the House of Commons briefing says:

Private bills are promoted by organisations (or individuals) which want Parliament to permit them to do something that they may not currently do, which affects only specific people or localities and not the general public.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06508/

So we can't do that either.

It is a bit much that those pp who worked hard to override and rubbish warnings are now posting for the bill.

But why would a party with such a large mandate give more thought to this than they did pre GE anyway

I don't mind pushing a partially open door, ie emailing all the MPs who said yes to changing the EqA but Labour are very thin on the ground there. Look back at the WM debate, and RD has now left.

If pp want to work with that shut door they can of course. I mean Labour have this mandate due to those votes anyway.

That is then a basis to draft! You could instruct a lawyer to do it.

Getting it into Parliament requires a friendly MP to do it. You would need an MP with a high ranking PMB slot.

The point is to do it. I cannot think of major social changes, abortion or decriminalized homosexuality that did not start as PMB. Likewise assisted dying. You have to write the bill. Truss failed but she did try. It needs to be done again and better.

Well no I don’t think that. But I do think it’s a bit naive for the Opposition to say well won’t you implement our policy changes that we put in our manifesto. That’s just ridiculous.

That’s not pressure. And btw they should be actively drafting the changes they want like NOW. Once Starmer does introduce a bill himself, this is a golden opportunity to put those changes that the Conservatives want by amendments and have the argument. I would say in Badenoch’s favour that she has the knowledge. And the job of the Opposition is to oppose in policy terms and by legal amendments. I would not wait. Sex Matters could work with the Tories on those amendments

You could instruct a lawyer to do it.

Why don't you do this? And the rest of your post

Well… are you asking?

Yes please let's have a definition. Let's force mealy-mouthed Kier to tell the public what he really thinks a woman is.

I look forward to him wriggling under the microscope on this one.

Tbh I can't really follow or trust anyone who has such a big switch on an issue just because a GE has passed. I question the motivation due to that

But what you decide to do is up to you. I don't see the point in asking what you'd like to see happen of other posters though

You are too personal to someone you don’t know! Take your feelings out of it.

It's really not about 'feelings' I don't feel any emotion as such.

More there are posters I trust on FWR due to consistency and understanding of motivation

The HoC is set up in such a way as to carry out the legislative mandate of the party that wins the election. The PMB system is set up as a sop for backbench MPs and is tilted against them in almost every conceivable way. The only realistic way a PMB makes it through the legislative process in both Houses of Parliament is if it has government support e.g. the current Assisted Dying Bill. But governments rarely support PMBs and in fact are happy to let them be killed off by the PMB system instead because they have their own legislative agenda to get through both Houses. There have even been MPs in the past who sat in the House on Fridays with the express purpose of killing off PMBs by talking them out of time because they disagree with them or with the system itself.

The HoC is under Labour’s control for the foreseeable future and the doctrine governing the HoL means they cannot reject or influence govt legislation in any substantial manner. The only tool we have is lobbying the Tory Party to use examples of the negative outcomes arising from GRA 2004 and EQA 2010 and hoping the press keep up their scrutiny of these issues. To be honest, with the brass necks on Starmer & Co, I don’t see that working significantly unless there is an awful example that happens near some sort of by-election or council election or even a general election and Starmer is forced by public and media pressure to make a concession.

I don’t disagree with the point on Commons control. That is fact. But otherwise it suggests that an Opposition will not oppose. Or that no MP will advance an idea that is contrary to established thinking.

Does not that all seem rather cosy? That was my original point, that actually, when you look at the actions of parties, which is to do anything short of legislative change, then there is not too much difference between Starmer and Badenoch. If no one works the system, then the idea falls away.

It took 25 years from the Wolfenden Report to decriminalize gay sex in the UK. A lot of parliamentarians had to produce bills and work the system. These changes can take a long time. It’s far better to keep doing what Truss did than accept you don’t have the numbers.